CrestfallenNoMore Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I've purchased my own home, paid off my car and built up a nice wine cellar in the 3 years since my divorce. We split the assets and walked away, so I didn't "get" anything out of the divorce as we both made a good income and no spousal support was asked for, nor any children born to the marriage who required support. Because of this awareness of the fragility of relationships, I'm hesistant to re-marry; however, if I change my mind someday, I would demand a pre-nup. There is simply no way I am going to risk losing the home I purchased or the other assets I acquired between the marriages to someone who might just walk away again. It may seem a silly question to ask, but would you feel emasculated if she asked you to sign a pre-nup if she wanted to protect her assets? Keep in mind I often date men who make less than I do.
Mad Max Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I'm marrying someone because I love them. I would have no problem signing a pre-nup. Just a heads up, you're going to get a few male posters that will use the same line that many women use, so women don't have the right to complain if the guy refuses to sign one.
brainygirl Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I figure mutual pre-nups ought to be standard when setting up a household for marriage. I also think that spousal support is an outdated concept in this day and age . . .
somedude81 Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I'd have no problem signing a prenup. I would never marry a woman because I was hoping to get something out of it if things went bad.
Lemontang Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Yes I would. I've been burnt twice by not doing this. So yes especially if you both have significant assets. Even more so if the person coming into the relationship brings very little only to take half of what you've spent years building prior to them when they leave. The only thing that should be negotiated on is what you built fiscally whilst you were together.
sanskrit Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Absolutely, would insist on one as a matter of fact. Keep in mind, though, that they aren't favored by courts, and many judges will throw them out entirely without good cause.
Art_Critic Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) I would sign one.. Not in a heartbeat though..I would have it examined by my attorney first and of course at that time I would have to ask her to sign one as well.. Something to remember.. unless you own your house free and clear then any payments made after marriage are made with marital money and in most cases you will not be able to avoid that.. even with a prenup. That doesn't mean you can't protect your home and retain ownership with a prenup but it also means you cannot pound all your liquid money into a house hoping to keep the money in the event of a divorce just because you have a prenup. prenups have to be fair. Now that doesn't mean you cannot offset that in the prenup with some other thing.. like her home etc etc.. it is a deal you have to create between two people.. Edited October 4, 2010 by Art_Critic
Rorschach Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I figure mutual pre-nups ought to be standard when setting up a household for marriage. I also think that spousal support is an outdated concept in this day and age . . . This times a million. Up with prenups, down with alimony. Obviously I would have no problem signing one if she asked me, and I'd ask her to sign one if she didn't.
PhoenixLady Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Pre-nups are for people who aren't really sure about the character of the person they are marrying, IMHO.
Mad Max Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Pre-nups are for people who aren't really sure about the character of the person they are marrying, IMHO. You can never be sure in a country where the divorce rate is over 50% and women file for divorce at least 70% of the time. It's a safety precaution for us men. For women that have money and assets, they would be wise to have their husband sign one as well.
threebyfate Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Crestfallen, don't even consider marrying someone who won't sign one. IMO, it's a big, red flag.
Author CrestfallenNoMore Posted October 4, 2010 Author Posted October 4, 2010 Hmm...that's a good point, Art. I probably wouldn't get married then, which renders the question moot. He could move in and pay rent to me (though I can totally understand if he wouldn't be happy paying down my mortgage and getting zero equity, despite having a place to live); otherwise, he'd have to be satisfied staying unmarried in a LTR and maintaining separate residences. If not, I guess that would be it.
Art_Critic Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Crestfallen, don't even consider marrying someone who won't sign one. IMO, it's a big, red flag. I think you are right TBF.. if a person chooses to use one and the other person won't sign it then that red flag outweighs the other flag of pulling one out to begin with.. The only win win is if both parties are on board.. If only one party wants it then it is red flag on both sides.. IMO Kind of a double edge sword really...
Art_Critic Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Hmm...that's a good point, Art. I probably wouldn't get married then, which renders the question moot. He could move in and pay rent to me (though I can totally understand if he wouldn't be happy paying down my mortgage and getting zero equity, despite having a place to live); otherwise, he'd have to be satisfied staying unmarried in a LTR and maintaining separate residences. If not, I guess that would be it. You could protect some of his assets in that though.. say if he had a home.. then both homes get protected and both homes are paid for with marital money but in the vent of a divorce you walk away with each.. I have a family member that had a prenup that involved who got the lake house.. after the divorce the lake house had about 40k more equity in it than the residence and he still had to buy out that half of the equity.. even though they had a prenup.. but it did decide who got the which home.
threebyfate Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) I think you are right TBF.. if a person chooses to use one and the other person won't sign it then that red flag outweighs the other flag of pulling one out to begin with.. The only win win is if both parties are on board.. If only one party wants it then it is red flag on both sides.. IMO Kind of a double edge sword really...It can be construed in pretty much any way you want to twist the words. But if someone refuses to sign a prenup, beyond being emotionally irrational and/or a gold digger, what other reasons would there be? Edited October 4, 2010 by threebyfate
Author CrestfallenNoMore Posted October 4, 2010 Author Posted October 4, 2010 You could protect some of his assets in that though.. say if he had a home.. then both homes get protected and both homes are paid for with marital money but in the vent of a divorce you walk away with each.. I have a family member that had a prenup that involved who got the lake house.. after the divorce the lake house had about 40k more equity in it than the residence and he still had to buy out that half of the equity.. even though they had a prenup.. but it did decide who got the which home. Unfortunately most of the men in my income tax bracket are much older than I'd like to date, are already married, or, if my age, want a 25-year-old who wants children. It's been very difficult for me to find someone to date who would even have his own home or significant assets that he'd have to protect. But it gives me something to think about.
Art_Critic Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 It can be construed in pretty much any way you want to twist the words. But if someone refuses to sign a prenup, beyond being emotionally irrational and/or a gold digger, what other reasons would there be? The term emotionally irrational could encompass 1000 reasons.. many valid... If someone feels that the relationship now lacks trust because they were asked to sign a prenup are they supposed to be wrong for feeling that way ? Is only the person asking for the prenup the only right one ? The gold digger is a no brainer... By the way.. I asked a girl to sign a pre marital agreement after engagement about 25 years ago so she understood how my companies are set up so she understood that she could never become an owner.. she walked.. but I always felt she was a gold digger down deep.. I did learn a lot about that experience though.. I also learned how both sides feelings have merit.. and now the divorce laws are different in my state than they were back then so a prenup isn't necessary anymore..
Mad Max Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Hahaha ... Reminds me of a thread I opened a while back where I said, "Women who dont like pre-nups are usually the omen who have no money to lose in the relationship and when they do they suddenly love pre-nups." :laugh: I remember that thread. They thought that a man who wants a pre-nup doesn't trust his woman. At the same time, they supported women with money that wanted the man to sign one. Hypocritical much?
PhoenixLady Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 You can never be sure in a country where the divorce rate is over 50% and women file for divorce at least 70% of the time. It's a safety precaution for us men. For women that have money and assets, they would be wise to have their husband sign one as well. I wouldn't. I'd sooner not get married than ask a man to sign one. I either trust someone or I don't. And if I don't trust them enough to know that they won't rip me off financially, and unfairly if the marriage should fail, then shame on me for marrying them in the first place. Shame on me for not really knowing their character. It can be construed in pretty much any way you want to twist the words. But if someone refuses to sign a prenup, beyond being emotionally irrational and/or a gold digger, what other reasons would there be? Many reasons...see above. Trust and knowing someone's character for one. I don't get feeling confident enough to take vows and pledge an oath to share a life but not your assets. Huh? I just don't get that. I can't even imagine asking that of someone I was considering spending my life with, let alone fathom them asking that of me. The term emotionally irrational could encompass 1000 reasons.. many valid... If someone feels that the relationship now lacks trust because they were asked to sign a prenup are they supposed to be wrong for feeling that way ? Is only the person asking for the prenup the only right one ? The gold digger is a no brainer... By the way.. I asked a girl to sign a pre marital agreement after engagement about 25 years ago so she understood how my companies are set up so she understood that she could never become an owner.. she walked.. but I always felt she was a gold digger down deep.. I did learn a lot about that experience though.. I also learned how both sides feelings have merit.. and now the divorce laws are different in my state than they were back then so a prenup isn't necessary anymore.. Yep, thanks for the bolded part above. Exactly. Hahaha ... Reminds me of a thread I opened a while back where I said, "Women who dont like pre-nups are usually the omen who have no money to lose in the relationship and when they do they suddenly love pre-nups." :laugh: Nope. Not me. As I said, I'd stay away from marriage entirely or I'd marry without one. It's all or nothing for me.
Author CrestfallenNoMore Posted October 4, 2010 Author Posted October 4, 2010 Shame on me for not really knowing their character. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I married someone who had the highest degree of character of any man I'd ever known (after my father). He had always been honest, forthright, made sacrifices for me and acted with esteem. I refuse to feel shame for not predicting that 8 years down the road, his own insecurities and conflict avoidance would cause him to leave me for another woman. You never, ever truly KNOW any other person, period, and you're deluded if you think you can know every nook and cranny of their dark places. You know that person's principles and character while you're with them, but people change over time and I refuse to be held hostage to blaming myself or losing my livelihood over another human being to whom I have no control over. The simple fact is the person we divorce is not the person we fell in love with - ever. The post asked men if they'd feel emasculated about signing a pre-nup, not the efficacy or morality of pre-nups in general. Please try to stay on topic.l
Author CrestfallenNoMore Posted October 4, 2010 Author Posted October 4, 2010 You wanna find a partner but at the same time you seem so unwilling to share what you have with that person. When you go on a date, do you also order a $50 meal while you watch your date have an $8 meal because thats all he can afford? If all you want is someone to keep you company without spending more than you want, then you can always hire male escorts you know. They are pretty popular these days I hear. Oh, please. You don't know me or what I want at all.
Art_Critic Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Lol, naivety at its best. But.. would you sign a prenup ?.. that is what the OP asks about...
PhoenixLady Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I married someone who had the highest degree of character of any man I'd ever known (after my father). He had always been honest, forthright, made sacrifices for me and acted with esteem. I refuse to feel shame for not predicting that 8 years down the road, his own insecurities and conflict avoidance would cause him to leave me for another woman. You never, ever truly KNOW any other person, period, and you're deluded if you think you can know every nook and cranny of their dark places. You know that person's principles and character while you're with them, but people change over time and I refuse to be held hostage to blaming myself or losing my livelihood over another human being to whom I have no control over. The simple fact is the person we divorce is not the person we fell in love with - ever. The post asked men if they'd feel emasculated about signing a pre-nup, not the efficacy or morality of pre-nups in general. Please try to stay on topic.l Wow. Where do I start? I'm sorry but I've been married and divorced and the person I divorced, was really the same person I married as far as character goes. He didn't magically turn into a person of bad character. I just realized that we were like oil and water as far as compatibility was concerned. But his fundamental character was the same. He didn't try to rip me off and I didn't try to rip him off either. See what I'm saying? I'm very much on topic. I know many men who would feel insulted (if not emasculated), for lack of a better word, by a woman who would ask for a pre-nup. My husband would be one of them.
PhoenixLady Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Lol, naivety at its best. I honestly doubt you will even consider marrying a guy who have only half what you have in the first place. Come back to me when you make 100K/year and you are marrying a UPS driver without a pre-nup. Yes, I would. You don't know me. You have no idea whether I make 100K or 10K. I don't care what the man does for a living. If I love him and trust him and trust my gut about him, I'd marry him. And guess what? I did just that! Oh and...no prenup.
Ruby Slippers Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I'm one of the sappiest romantics you'll ever meet, and even I think that pre-nups are a great idea when either or both parties have significant assets.
Recommended Posts